Daily Kos

View Story | 212 comments

  •  abortion (none / 0)

    It's interesting you bring up abortion, because I've always disagreed with the way the left has framed that argument, maybe because of my own experience. My parents had a shotgun wedding pre-Roe, and spit out a total of 3 kids in 5 years because their Catholic upbringing left them clueless about birth control. Needless to say my childhood was a mess, and it's even more tragic because my parents are both pretty good people; they just were forced to be parents too young, and with the wrong partner. I'm sad for the happy families they could have had in different circumstances.

    I wouldn't wish my childhood on anyone, and that's what fuels my pro-choice stance. I'd call myself a feminist, but that really doesn't figure into the abortion issue for me at all. It's about compassion and kids, and valuing life enough to want each one to be as positive as possible. I think that jibes very well with the framework above, and I think we should try harder to emphasize that pro-choice is pro-child and pro-family. It's too easy for the right to rally the stone-agers when we frame it as a strictly feminist issue.

    by mewsic on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:36:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (none / 1)

      I'd call myself a feminist, but that really doesn't figure into the abortion issue for me at all.

      For a long time I felt the same way, but in talking to friends and colleagues (and seeing photos like this one) I've come to believe that the abortion issue really is a gender issue in the classic sense.  Or, to paraphrase many a feminist:  If men could get pregnant, abortion AND maternity leave would be covered under a decades-old socialized, nation health plan.

      As for the rest, agreed wholeheartedly.  Marriage and reproductive freedom are areas where the framing concept should be highly applicable and can help win the argument.  I've had separate discussions recently with relatives who were anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion where I've tried to employ this strategy, as well as coming at the argument from a conservative point of view (for instance:  "haven't we [in church, etc.] always encouraged couples who are having sex to get married?")  I've had a surprising amount of success;  not exactly 'converting' folks, but getting them to broaden their point of view.  

      On abortion, another relative was upset that advocates for reproductive freedom have co-opted the word "choice."  I pointed out that if you feel that way, certainly you have to agree that "pro-life" isn't a fair framing of the anti-abortion argument.  

      I've felt extremely aware of Lakoff's framing concept for a long time, particularly in the last two presidential elections.  In some ways it strikes me as a "duh!" kind of argument - or just a re-packaging of what we all should have learned from Orwell - but I'm excited to see someone tackling it in a systematic way; establishing a theory of how it works, so to speak, and explaining how it can be applied ethically to help market progressive causes.

      by ryan b on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:50:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that photo is frightening (none / 1)

        I remember seeing that photo the first time. Also considering myself a femanist, I didn't really see abortion as a feminist issue either. But that picture says it all. A bunch of men in power making a sweeping decision about all women, circumstances be damned. They will never  have to suffer any life altering consequences for their decision. Yet they are celebrating that they are able to impose these consequences on others.

        Feminism is about women having the power of self-determination. No man is ever going to be raped and then saddled with a lifetime responsibility as a reminder of that horrid event. No man will ever lose his life in childbirth. No man should have the right to force these unasked for situations on 50% of the population.

        Personally, I can't imagine having an abortion. But I've never experienced the above situations or any other situation that would put me in a position of having to make such a decision. How painful a decision it must be. How dare they think it is their decision to make.

        Netroots Nation...mmmmhmmm.

        by gina on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none / 1)

        Don't get me wrong -- I was explaining what fuels the issue for me personally. I believe wholeheartedly that the impulse to restrict access to abortion is rooted, for many people, in some kind of atavistic desire to control women's sexuality.

        But here's what those people have done. They've hidden themselves behind people like my next-door neighbor, a really kind, sweet Catholic lady who in her heart of hearts sees abortion as depriving life to a child. The frothing misogynists have appropriated that framework (though espousing violence against doctors doesn't do much for their credibility).

        I think pro-choicers have the advantage of being fairly unanimous about several frameworks: most of us are committed to feminism, and most of us are committed to children's welfare. That being the case, we can choose which one to emphasize. The feminist framework might rally the troops, but I don't think it'll win that many converts. But the children's-best-interests framework appeals to a nearly universal moral imperative -- while also forcing the right to really look at some of the situations they're so gung-ho to bring kids into, and explain how that jibes with wanting to cut welfare.

        by mewsic on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:30:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can't convert (none / 0)


          Abortion is the type of issue that you cannot convert  someone to. If someone believes its wrong to kill and believes a fetus is alive theres not much you can say to get them to support your agenda.

          And Abortion in my opinion is a medical not political issue and should be decided by the doctors and medical community in my opinion not politicians.

          Where you won't win with abortion is the moral debate, you cannot convince someone its morally right to kill unless they already believe this and its the same as trying to convince people of the death penalty.

          Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

          by Lucian on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:44:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, it's not always that hard. (none / 0)

            You'd be surprised how many people take a position because of their peer group rather than deep philosophical thought.  

            My ex-wife has a police record from being arrested while engaging in protest for Operation Rescue.  She had to serve community service.  She was very involved in the San Pedro evangelical community at the time.  Even made TV appearances.

            After we became married, she changed her views.  I'd like to say that it's because I'm such a persuasive speaker, but, actually, I tried to respect her views while just expressing my disagreement.  

            I think what made the difference was the loss of her peer group.  Religious groups have very strong peer-reinforcement of beliefs among their members.   When that becomes extended to political views, it can be a mighty force.

            Her church, by the way, was headed by the brother of Bush 41's INS department head, Harold Ezell.

            by Dumbo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 04:58:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's still wrong (none / 0)


      Just because you wish you werent born does not mean the rest of us agree with you. I was raised under difficult circumstances and I value my life along with all life in general.

      This has nothing to do with how a persons raised it has to do with how much you value life. Abortion is wrong because it decreases the value of life, its wrong for the same reason the death penalty is wrong.

      Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

      by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:57:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 212 comments